Why do you call the baker homophobic? It appears this baker was sticking to the values of her faith when she refused to make a cake for something she didn't believe in. I mean I don't think you'd call a Jew supremophobic for not wanting to bake a Nazi cake or a muslim porcinophobic for not baking a bacon flavored cake with a picture of a pig on it. Or perhaps you would call a Hindu bovinophobic for refusing to make a beef tourtiere? It's not easy to find out why a person would even approach these bakers for that service unless they were trying to do something ulterior.

Until science proves otherwise it is precisely about this. There is no known genetic link (certainly not a visible one such as race) that determines sexual 'orientation.' I don't buy your cultural example either. For example I could claim to be gay right now, go into a Christian baker shop and ask for a gay wedding cake to be made, and I would probably get shot down. It is NOT the same as being black. I could not claim to be black. People would think I was nuts if I did. Discriminating against someone for their uncontrolled genetic makeup is REAL discrimination. There is no genetic evidence of homosexuality. There might be one in the future, at which point said discrimination would cross the line into the same ballpark. Right now it's discrimination against desire and behavior. Unless of course you're willing to claim pedophiles or zoophiles who have an uncontrolled sexual attraction to children or animals are widely discriminated against in society as well?

Lots of errors here and they can be explained simply.

Refusing to make the cake upsets nice human beings because it implies that you think their whole lifestyle is sinful.

It is not nearly as upsetting to people if you imply that their eating habits are wrong.

And it IS ok to imply that people's whole lifestyle is sinful if those people are NAZIS. So much for your analogies.

Discriminating against members of groups where they could choose to not be members may or may not be justifiable. But if it is difficult or impossible for them to leave that group they should not be discriminated against unless they are engaged in evil ACTIONS.

You erred in two ways. Firstly it is not only genes that put people in groups that they can't help. It can also be circumstances. Secondly people who can't help what their desires are should not be discriminated against even if you personally think those desires are abnormal or against your religion. Gay people, people who are attracted to children and people who are attracted to animals should indeed not be discriminated against as long as they don't
do anything that hurts others. But gay people are in a separate category because if they act on their desires they are not hurting any other living thing while the other two are. (They are also almost certainly not nearly as "abnormal" as the other two categories. But you need not agree with that characterization to come to the conclusion that those who think they are not behaving naturally have a right to do something or decline to do something if it will make gay people feel very badly.)

Refusing to make the cake upsets nice human beings because it implies that you think their whole lifestyle is sinful.

Couple errors in this sentence alone. Saying that human behavior should be regulated around the value of 'not upsetting anyone' is a dangerous assertion. Civil rights activists have always offended the sensibilities of their day for the greater good. In fact even talking about something with such broad interpretations as truth and you're almost guaranteed to offend someone else. But I suppose it's ok to offend, just so long as you agree with it?

Secondly, the last half of your sentence implies that it's not ok for people to believe that behavior is sinful. Aside from this upsetting pretty much every seriously religious person in the world, it implies that tolerance is a virtue that only applies to the amorphous group of people you think have it right. Fortunately we don't live in that kind of society, yet.

This is what I meant when I said I thought anti-discrimination has gone too far. It's not merely about protection for a group to do certain behaviors as everyone else now, it's about being protected from even hearing contrary opinions about those behaviors. We live in strange times.

What a disgusting mess. I'm going to drop many of the threads to focus on the more homophobic parts in your post.

Here we go. I predict most of your post will be 'that offends me' rearranged in words implying I should live my life so as not to offend anyone, but we'll see.

Quote:

This is an extremely homophobic view. Deciding that "REAL" discrimination are things that are genetic is ridiculous. Discrimination against people of different religions, or different cultures isn't "REAL" because religion and culture isn't genetic? Discrimination against disabled people (from nongenetic ailments) isn't "REAL" discrimination? Of course not. To suggest that discrimination against LGBT people is not "REAL" discrimination because being LGBT is putatively not genetic is a disgusting, homophobic claim.

It's less impactful, certainly. Notice I didn't say you could only be discriminated against for genetics; I included discrimination against behavior and desire as well which I also think is wrong. Equivocating the two is so wrong it's insulting. Black people were systematically, politically, and socially abused by our system for 300+ years because of their skin color. They've been slaves, subjected to Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws, forced to drink from separate water fountains and use different bathrooms, economically oppressed, etc. Saying gay people have suffered the same degree and type of abuse is absurdly false. Caveat: since I have to state the obvious on this website to rabid political zealots, this does not mean that gay people have not suffered from discrimination or that I think that's ok. It just means it's not the same type and not to the same degree.

Quote:

This has nothing to do with the point it quotes. Read it again. But there is a bigger problem. Homophobes tend to bring up - seemingly randomly - some nature vs nuture discussion. Who cares? The resolution to that question is entirely irrelevant. The way homophobes have historically used this is to discredit gay people because it isn't "genetic", and that the kinds of protections we afford black people should not be for gay people. While genetic factors likely DO play a role - contrary to your claims - it is entirely irrelevant.

You can read above for the answer to this.

Quote:

Disgusting. Reducing being gay to desire and behaviour is minimizing, and homophobic. Doubly so in the context of trying to downplay discrimination against them because it isn't - in your disgusting words - "REAL discrimination.

Are you going to virtue signal in every paragraph? Lol.

Quote:

Another disgusting argument. There is a long, sick, and homophobic history of gay people being compared to pedophiles. You may not be aware that you are contributing to that history, but you are. But you go further than most homophobes who just vaguely compare the two. You are painting some sort of equivalence between discriminating against gay people and discriminating against pedophiles.

I'm talking strictly desire here because obviously the behavior should be discriminated against in the case of the pedophile. Rigorously: can pedophiles or zoophiles control their desire? If they can't, then they shouldn't be discriminated against simply for having that desire. If you think they should, you're just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand along sexual desire before gay people and after pedophiles. Please tell us the matrix you used to decide where to draw this line.

Quote:

This is a bizarre (and pretty offensive) comment. Trivializing homophobia to comparison of comical comical "porinophobic" was silly enough, but you really had to add Jew/Nazi comparisons in as well?

Instead of getting triggered by everything, read the comment and try and decipher the subtext in it. The issue is about forcing someone to celebrate through creativity views they don't agree with.

Quote:

Why is this relevant? Why is discrimination against LGBT related to whether you can pretend to be gay, but not pretend to be black?

See above.

Quote:

They wanted a wedding cake? Gay people interact with people in society all the time. They don't know ahead of time who the homophobes are.

There is a very significant % of people who do not believe that gay marriage is even ontologically possible. It's not discrimination to think this, regardless of your beliefs about it.

Quote:

I'd cut this bit for irrelevancy, but please don't use the word retarded. It is offensive.

Sorry not sorry.

Quote:

As you can see, I am quite happy directly combating homophobic ideas in a public sphere. If you feel some compulsion towards violence because I have called your obsession about "genetic" homophobic, well that is your problem.

Again, a total misunderstanding of my post. Free speech and freedom of opinion is essential to prevent violence, which is why it's instantiated as a basic civil right. When free speech and freedom of opinion (yes, even extreme racist and discriminatory ones) is suppressed, violence inevitably occurs. Everything in your reply exposes your non-belief in this right.

Quote:

This is my last response to you. I suggest you take some time to consider the cultural moment we are in, and the long, hateful, damaging history of comments such as those you have made here.

I suggest you become more intellectually nuanced. Your views are absurdly simplistic and quite obviously biased.

It's less impactful, certainly. Notice I didn't say you could only be discriminated against for genetics; I included discrimination against behavior and desire as well which I also think is wrong. Equivocating the two is so wrong it's insulting. Black people were systematically, politically, and socially abused by our system for 300+ years because of their skin color. They've been slaves, subjected to Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws, forced to drink from separate water fountains and use different bathrooms, economically oppressed, etc. Saying gay people have suffered the same degree and type of abuse is absurdly false. Caveat: since I have to state the obvious on this website to rabid political zealots, this does not mean that gay people have not suffered from discrimination or that I think that's ok. It just means it's not the same type and not to the same degree.

What you're making here is a historical claim that homophobic discrimination has caused less suffering than other kinds of discrimination. What you were accused of was being a homophobe on account of you defending the claim that only discriminations based on genetics are 'REAL'. How does this historical claim have anything to do with your statement about genetics determining the reality of discriminations?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoOrDoNot

I'm talking strictly desire here because obviously the behavior should be discriminated against in the case of the pedophile. Rigorously: can pedophiles or zoophiles control their desire? If they can't, then they shouldn't be discriminated against simply for having that desire. If you think they should, you're just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand along sexual desire before gay people and after pedophiles. Please tell us the matrix you used to decide where to draw this line.

Again, you were accused of homophobia precisely because, with no prompting, you decided to bring up similarities between homosexuality and pedophilia / zoophilia. That homosexuality, like heterosexuality, as a sexual preference may have some similarities with other sexual preferences is trivial. That you, and other homophobes, love to talk about homosexuality and the parallels you choose to draw between it and obviously problematic sexual preferences is what you were being called on, not the boring detail of your 'argument'.

Not at all. What exactly is a "gay wedding cake"? I've been to three gay weddings. I'm sure for two but a little fuzzy on the third that there was nothing "gay" about them. They were wedding cakes. That gay people bought. What are you envisioning, rainbow layer cake icing double mars symbols and two out of style same sex figurines on the top

I'm presuming the overwhelming majority of "gay wedding cakes" have a couple tiers of ****ty fondant with edible flowers....just like the overwhelming majority of cakes you'll find on pinterest or whatever. Now in this exact case, the plaintiff and defendant didn't agree on the characterization of exactly how unique this specific cake would be, but broadly I think you're better off not using "gay wedding cake" as if the actual cake is different from a "wedding cake". The difference, for the most part, is in who is buying it.

Have you tried googling "gay wedding cake"? There are overt features that can make a wedding cake a "gay" wedding cake. It's not complicated.

Edit: And you can conclude this by looking at the cake and not knowing anything about the person who ordered it. And there are cakes for gay weddings that aren't overtly "gay." And the better line for you to take isn't the person making the purchase, but rather the people for whom the cake is for. (Yes, they are usually the same persons, but it's a distinction that has a legal difference. It's the content of the expression of the cake and not the purchaser.)

I don't think so. I think at least two or three of the justices would have voted differently. And I think the reason for that would be because they consciously or subconsciously believe that being opposed to mixed racial marriages is more evil than being opposed to gay marriages.

I'm not sure if you are aware that it was a 7-2 ruling. So if two voted differently, it makes little difference in terms of the ruling itself.

And you're free to speculate into the minds of the Supreme Court Justices' conscious and subconscious states all you want. I'm doubtful of your capacity to do so accurately.

There is a very significant % of people who do not believe that gay marriage is even ontologically possible. It's not discrimination to think this, regardless of your beliefs about it.

You can reject ontological possibility, but the standard that the court must work with is the legal possibility, which is now legal reality. Sovereign citizens use what are essentially ontological arguments (I don't believe your authority is valid), and they fail in hilarious ways as a result. Your beliefs do not, on their own, bear any weight.

Have you tried googling "gay wedding cake"? There are overt features that can make a wedding cake a "gay" wedding cake. It's not complicated.

Edit: And you can conclude this by looking at the cake and not knowing anything about the person who ordered it. And there are cakes for gay weddings that aren't overtly "gay." And the better line for you to take isn't the person making the purchase, but rather the people for whom the cake is for. (Yes, they are usually the same persons, but it's a distinction that has a legal difference. It's the content of the expression of the cake and not the purchaser.)

I will grant that there is some element here of "artistic control" over one's creations. Here's a fairly explicit hypothetical example.

Let's say that I am an artisanal rope-maker. I make really fancy ropes and cords with elaborate weaves and whatnot. Someone comes into my store and asks me to create a custom length of rope. No problem.

Now we have the same situation, same rope, but this time over the course of the conversation the customer reveals that their intention is to fashion a noose and hang it up somewhere as a statement. At this point, knowing the context in which the creation will be used, there is a question of whether there is a sufficient objection to the use of my artistic work in that context.

In the first case, if it were used in that manner, I could truthfully plead ignorance and say "I didn't know they were going to do *THAT* with it." In the second case, I don't have such a plea. And so now am I assenting to the message by custom-designing an object with the full knowledge of the end destination of that object? I think so. And part of that has to do with the fact that this isn't "generic" rope, but it's "my" rope because it's "my" craft. I was asked for a custom work designed for a specific end that I was informed about.

If I were just a hardware store owner, and some guy came in and bought rope off the shelf and told me what he was going to do with it, I think I could frown upon it, but I don't think I could take the rope back and say that he can't have it.

Go back to grammar mongering, suits your style better. And, you already whiffed at the proof. I'm totally unimpressed by your reaction, so I leave you to re-read my post as often as you please. Argue with yourself what it proves or doesn't all you want.

Have you tried googling "gay wedding cake"? There are overt features that can make a wedding cake a "gay" wedding cake. It's not complicated. And you can conclude this by looking at the cake and not knowing anything about the person who ordered it. And there are cakes for gay weddings that aren't overtly "gay."

Right. While it is possible to put on overt "gay" features like rainbow layers - the kind that would show up on searching "gay wedding cake" - my guess is that most wedding cakes bought for* gay people just look like wedding cakes any straight couple could use. Certainly the couple I have seen have been. Maybe they get the interchangeable figurines on the top, or the custom icing text has two female names or whatever. It is a mistake to shift the conversation to "gay wedding cakes" where those are things with overt gay symbols.

Consider the actual case:

Quote:

To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the
shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering
a cake for “our wedding.” Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted).They did not mention the design of the cake they
envisioned.

Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create”
wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained,
“I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell
you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same
sex weddings.” Ibid. The couple left the shop without
further discussion.

Your rope example is appropriate. The difference isn't in the type of rope used. It isn't the design of the cake, whether it has over gay symbols that a straight person wouldn't use; this wasn't discussed. It is whether the rope is used for suicide, or the cake used for same sex weddings. You should stop conflating the issue of the thread - wedding cakes bought for* gay people - and your description of "gay wedding cake" which you seem to be defining as a wedding cake with overt features anyone can recognize by looking at that make it gay.

What you're making here is a historical claim that homophobic discrimination has caused less suffering than other kinds of discrimination. What you were accused of was being a homophobe on account of you defending the claim that only discriminations based on genetics are 'REAL'. How does this historical claim have anything to do with your statement about genetics determining the reality of discriminations?

Again, you were accused of homophobia precisely because, with no prompting, you decided to bring up similarities between homosexuality and pedophilia / zoophilia. That homosexuality, like heterosexuality, as a sexual preference may have some similarities with other sexual preferences is trivial. That you, and other homophobes, love to talk about homosexuality and the parallels you choose to draw between it and obviously problematic sexual preferences is what you were being called on, not the boring detail of your 'argument'.

Exactly right. Part of what gets me is that there is a long and harmful history of comparing gay people to pedophiles, or bringing up the nature vs nuture argument that discrimination against gays isn't "REAL discrimination" because of that point. Even if we give every possible credit of a good faith attempt to make valid points, people in 2018 should be aware of this. They should recognize how comparing gay people to pedophiles is just a really, really, really bad look. And even if you think you've got this brilliant argument that requires bringing up the genetic causes of homosexuality, you'd think people would pause and maybe consider that given the history of these kinds of argument, all the hurt caused by them, that maybe they should hold back. But no.

I suspect that this statement is false. If a straight person were to be buying the exact same cake (specific to the details of the cake), I expect that the baker would not have sold it. I think it's quite a leap of logic to think that the baker would make a gay wedding cake and sell it to a straight person, but wouldn't sell it to a gay person.

Was he asked to write "congratulations John and Steve" or put two grooms on top?

I thought his objection was to the wedding itself, and he didn't want to be seen as approving of and/or contributing to it. In that case, I think his reaction would be different if two couples walked in and requested the exact same wedding cake (say, generic fondant flower decorations) but one couple was same-sex.

Couple errors in this sentence alone. Saying that human behavior should be regulated around the value of 'not upsetting anyone' is a dangerous assertion. Civil rights activists have always offended the sensibilities of their day for the greater good. In fact even talking about something with such broad interpretations as truth and you're almost guaranteed to offend someone else. But I suppose it's ok to offend, just so long as you agree with it?

Secondly, the last half of your sentence implies that it's not ok for people to believe that behavior is sinful. Aside from this upsetting pretty much every seriously religious person in the world, it implies that tolerance is a virtue that only applies to the amorphous group of people you think have it right. Fortunately we don't live in that kind of society, yet.

This is what I meant when I said I thought anti-discrimination has gone too far. It's not merely about protection for a group to do certain behaviors as everyone else now, it's about being protected from even hearing contrary opinions about those behaviors. We live in strange times.

Behaviors are "sinful" if they hurt others. Not because the Bible says so. If it is OK to make people feel bad about being gay, then it is OK to keep your children from getting blood transfusions. And if you think both are OK then you shouldn't try to win debates with logic.

At least you apparently admit your three analologies were flawed since you didn't dispute that part of my post.

Was he asked to write "congratulations John and Steve" or put two grooms on top?

I thought his objection was to the wedding itself, and he didn't want to be seen as approving of and/or contributing to it. In that case, I think his reaction would be different if two couples walked in and requested the exact same wedding cake (say, generic fondant flower decorations) but one couple was same-sex.

Oops. I somehow missed a number of posts by Aaron and uke discussing what makes a "gay" wedding cake.

What you're making here is a historical claim that homophobic discrimination has caused less suffering than other kinds of discrimination.

I'm stating that as fact, but I'm also differentiating between different classes of discrimination. It's one thing to be discriminated against for religious beliefs, or to be subtly denied rights the majority enjoy. It's entirely different to have been politically, socially, and economically oppressed in a systemic way from top to bottom, abused, and enslaved since the founding of the country. The two are not the same no matter how many different iterations of the claim you choose to make, or how many insults on my character you throw around in a vain attempt to make yourself sound right.

Quote:

What you were accused of was being a homophobe on account of you defending the claim that only discriminations based on genetics are 'REAL'. How does this historical claim have anything to do with your statement about genetics determining the reality of discriminations?

You can call me whatever made up word you want in an attempt to appear morally superior, it's no skin off my nose. I could care less what you think of me. I have friends and family members who are gay. They do not suffer discrimination of the same scope, degree, or class as blacks have historically, and I'm almost certain that they would universally agree. Neither is it homophobic to state that fact. So please stop making the equivocation.

Quote:

Again, you were accused of homophobia precisely because, with no prompting, you decided to bring up similarities between homosexuality and pedophilia / zoophilia.

They have nothing whatsoever in common? Or did you perhaps get trigger happy too soon? They share certain characteristics, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality share certain characteristics. I certainly didn't put them on the same moral level.

Quote:

That homosexuality, like heterosexuality, as a sexual preference may have some similarities with other sexual preferences is trivial.

It's not trivial, it's essential. The argument is that no one should be discriminated against for having sexual attractions they can't control. By that logic, pedophiles and zoophiles and whatever other-philes you can think of should not be discriminated against either. Again a caveat because obviousities go over heads here; I am not talking about behavior but uncontrollable sexual attraction.

No Christian conservatives hold against someone who they are sexually attracted to. No one. And even if they did, they have not only a right to believe it but to express it as well. This is something you don't seem to understand. It's not discrimination to hold a view or to express a view. It's not REAL discrimination and A LOT of progressives seem to think that it is. They seldom, in fact, speak from anything but that definition, but they're wrong.

Gays are discriminated against in REAL ways, explicit or subtle, and that's wrong, but holding or expressing an opinion that offends is not discrimination. It's just an opinion that might hurt people. Welcome to the world, opinions are like *******s and everyone has one and sometimes those opinions hurt feelings and even cause people with predispositions to depression to feel bad enough to kill themselves.

Religious viewpoints on homosexuality are as protected as progressive viewpoints on it.

Behaviors are "sinful" if they hurt others. Not because the Bible says so.

I take it you're not a Christian. Are you attempting to define what is sinful for Christians for them now?

Quote:

If it is OK to make people feel bad about being gay, then it is OK to keep your children from getting blood transfusions.

Is someone allowed to hold any view that could potentially make someone feel bad? If this were so no one would be able to hold any view at all!

Quote:

At least you apparently admit your three analologies were flawed since you didn't dispute that part of my post.

The analogies are apt. The question is whether or not someone should be forced to create something celebrating something they don't believe to be right. Hindus baking beef tourtieres, Jews baking alt-right cakes, and muslims baking Sikh cakes are all relevant to the question.

However none of them addressed the two simple points in my post. Firstly that facts about historical discrimination don't seem to obviously support the claim that non genetic based discriminations are not 'REAL'. Secondly that it's your love of comparing homosexuality to pedophilia / zoophilia (which apparently now is 'essential') which lead to the accusations of homophobia, not the detail of the actual comparison.

I don't know why, I suspect it's just your natural zeal to tell everyone about your unpleasant thoughts took over a bit too quickly, but in any case I'll leave you to it.

I dont know if this will add anything to this thread but I find it amusing:

Okay, so a genetic man and a genetic woman want to get married. But each has "transgendered" to the other sex and now wear clothes opposite to how they were born. So they order a heterosexual wedding cake from that baker. Since it is still a heterosexual marriage by any definition, is he okay with it?

Behaviors are "sinful" if they hurt others. Not because the Bible says so. If it is OK to make people feel bad about being gay, then it is OK to keep your children from getting blood transfusions. And if you think both are OK then you shouldn't try to win debates with logic.

At least you apparently admit your three analologies were flawed since you didn't dispute that part of my post.

However none of them addressed the two simple points in my post. Firstly that facts about historical discrimination don't seem to obviously support the claim that non genetic based discriminations are not 'REAL'. Secondly that it's your love of comparing homosexuality to pedophilia / zoophilia (which apparently now is 'essential') which lead to the accusations of homophobia, not the detail of the actual comparison.

I don't know why, I suspect it's just your natural zeal to tell everyone about your unpleasant thoughts took over a bit too quickly, but in any case I'll leave you to it.

Straight out of the p̶r̶o̶g̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ regressive playbook: when confronted with discordant beliefs, evade, be dismissive and reiterate.

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused service to same-sex couples, an Arizona court has upheld a Phoenix anti-discrimination ordinance preventing a wedding invitation business from similarly discriminating against same-sex couples.

The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Thursday against Brush & Nib Studio, a company selling artwork for home decor, weddings and special events. The owners, who are devout Christians, would like to legally refuse to create custom merchandise for same-sex weddings and post a public statement saying that “Brush & Nib Studio won’t create any artwork that violates [their] vision as defined by [their]religious and artistic beliefs and identity.” They have not yet refused any services to same-sex couples in practice, the ruling noted.

Brush & Nib’s discrimination would violate Phoenix’s public accommodation anti-discrimination ordinance, the court ruled, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Though the state of Arizona has a public accommodation anti-discrimination law, it does not include sexual orientation, the ruling noted.

“Simply stated, if Appellants, as an economic entity, want to operate their for-profit business as a public accommodation, they cannot discriminate against potential patrons based on sexual orientation,” Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop wrote in the ruling.

Disgusting. Reducing being gay to desire and behaviour is minimizing, and homophobic. Doubly so in the context of trying to downplay discrimination against them because it isn't - in your disgusting words - "REAL discrimination.

I dont understand. What is "being gay" if its not desire and behaviour?

Quote:

This is a bizarre (and pretty offensive) comment. Trivializing homophobia to comparison of comical comical "porinophobic" was silly enough, but you really had to add Jew/Nazi comparisons in as well?

You can throw around all sorts of labels if you like. I would rather hear your opinion on why his comparison isnt accurate